SUSA/JSFOu 93, 2011
Pauli RAHKONEN (Lahti)
Finno-Ugrian hydronyms of the River Volkhov and Luga catchment areas
" !" !" $ "B ! w ! $ ! ! ; $ ? B ? ! ; " B of the formants of hydronyms, the distribution of Chud toponyms and the names of large ! 9 " ! ^ $ $ ! ; $
1. Preface
" " " " > w - " '++M&&++ Z$ ? B " " " ! $ ? " concentrated on the material assumed to be Finno-Ugrian. " $ article, “The Linguistic Background of the Ancient Meshchera Tribe and Principal Areas of Settlement” ! Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 60 (2009). In this article, the boundaries of the ancient settlements of the Meshchera tribe and their ! $ " The South-Eastern Contact Field of the Finnic Languages. Its goal is primarily to describe the linguis- ; B ; <= = > = "$1 Furthermore, I attempt to trace as far as possible the languages and settlements of the vanished and poorly researched Finno-Ugrian tribes of the Upper Volkhov and Luga area. ? ? ! ; " chronicles. In Section 2, I present the topic of investigation and its history. Section ,B B ! ! " ! B -
& ; w B ^ B > B ; B @ B B w > $ ; <= = " B " " "$ ª ? R = < &~CC ? " $ 206
$ ? ' " ; - ! ; " " w ! $ In Section 5, I analyse the (topo)formants of the Finno-Ugrian hydronyms in Novgorod oblast. In B ? «6¬ «š¬ ; B ; <= " " " «h¬ " Finnic.2 ? ( ? " $ ; "B C ?B B " " 9 $ 9 ! ^ $ ? ! ^ B ! ! " 9 $ " conclusions are presented in Section 9. ? " " B " B ? =$ $ ª # ª# 9 # ª = 9# " B $ $ $ | B B linguistic reasons demand it.
2. Research questions and research history
? ! = > w 9 populated by Finno-Ugrian peoples until their russification in the Late Middle Ages. | B ! - $ ^ ! " ! !" $ For this reason, there has been no deep linguistic analysis. Usually the research has ! ! " ! ! ; <= B such as the lakes 9¦ #(D! ó#(D , 9¦ ÈD# KD) óÈD) KD) and the river Msta (e.g. ? &~C` &( = *++ ,`~ *++* *,*M*,,$ southern boundaries of Finno-Ugrian toponyms as running alongside the northern side of the river Daugava (~ Zapadnaya Dvina) from Livonia to the Kaluga region " ! &~~( 'B ; $ & *$ Although not only Sedov, but also such scholars as Popov (1981) and Vasilyev (2005: 19) and others have noted the Finno-Ugrian layer of toponyms, I have not heard " " ; <= " ! $ ! " " B _ " $ > " *++` " " $ ? !- lications include Popov’s Iz istorii finno-ugorskikh narodnostey SSSR (1947), Sedov’s O^ " " " _ P ! Finno- Ugry i Slavyane (1979), Tretyakov’s ¡ !!9 »K) ¤ #N È# !D ! Û!DW)D 9#KD (1966) and Ageyeva’s Gidronimiya Russkogo Severo-Zapada kak istochnik kulturno-
* ; B @ ! ; š B ! " Âs ¬ š). ; <= " " > w *+( istoricheskoy informatsii (1989). In Finnish circles, no thorough study of Finno-Ugrian ! " ! $ - eral assumption that the Chudes belonged to the Finnic linguistic group and lived east of Lake Peipus on the upper reaches of the rivers Luga and Volkhov, mostly in the area ! $ ! - # &~~( &`+M&(& $ In this study I have, utilizing the discipline of onomastics, endeavoured espe- " ! ; <= ! $ ? ! " confirm a Finnic origin for the Novgorodian Chudes as claimed in earlier literature, " B " $ ? " _ B a Finnic tribe has been based practically upon only the three hydronyms Ilmen, Seliger and Msta. ; "B ! !" ! w ª ; $
2.1. Chudes in the research frame
Previous ethnohistorical research on the Novgorodian Land has concentrated espe- " $3 # (1997: 151, 161) has argued that the ethnonym {%0 D spread from the original $ | ! - " the area around the lakes Chudskoye ozero ~ Peipus and Ilmen. No doubt, these are " ! $ # R ! " " ! $ " ! B B ! B ! " $ " ! &~~( ~M&` " *+ century. His conclusion is that almost all of the Finno-Ugrian nations that the Slavs encountered " ! $ &~~( ~B $ % 9 oblast and claims the present population to be partly descendants of the Chudes. There " ! B information). Supposedly, in that area they may be the descendants of the so-called O ! P ² ], though the chroni- w &~~' &+ 9 w &~`$ ; ! ! ! > % &~,`
3 There are numerous mentions of the Chudes also in the folklore of different districts and ethnic groups. Due to a lack of space, I have not broached this subject in the present article. 208
&~`' ? &~&B > ª ! &~'(B ^ &~* ; &~`$ ! - tions. Therefore, in this study I have used the term “Novgorodian Chudes” in order " " " > w " $
2.2. Finnic anthroponyms of the Novgorodian Birchbark Documents
According to Saarikivi (2007: 243–244), the Finnic anthroponyms of the Novgorodian Birchbark Documents mainly resemble the medieval names in the Karelian Isthmus and Ingria. It is important to note that the anthroponyms of these birchbark documents have ^ $ ? " " ^ B " ! $ ? " in the oldest stratum of the documents (ca 1000–1125 AD), no Finnic anthroponyms ! $ *++( *'&$ B B " B ! " " ; ! $ !" # &~~( &`'B administrative language does not mention either the Land of the Chudes or the Chudes B " Ow Chudes”. One must bear in mind that in the birchbark documents, the ethnonym in question is frequently represented (Janne Saarikivi, personal information).
"%`% } ,? : @ ' & '
Archaeologists have also studied the Finno-Ugrian ethnohistory of the area to some $ = ú < > (++M 400 BC). The population of this culture has been understood as a group that spoke 9 <; ú *++ &'+M&'& = *++ ,*$ " ! B B to determine the boundaries of the ancient Vote and Ingrian settlements during the " ! &~~( 'B ; $ & *B ; $ &C$ ! - w w $ ! " w ª " $ boundary of transparently Finnic hydronyms (see Section 4) is also placed rather close to these lines. (See Map 1.) When studying the history of the Chudes by utilizing archaeological methods, ! "B B ½4 This question has produced
' ? ! !\ $ ? " that any language and certain features of a local material culture together usually form ethnic identities. " ! " ! " ! - logical material really can serve as an ethnic marker. Such material can supposedly be found. ; <= " " > w *+~
$ ; B *++( - ! $ ! B $ X " ! ½ # 9 B ! $ ! ! ! the Slavs and the Finnic tribes or the Chudes. These supposedly occurred around 400 AD (Kallio 2006: 157). After 1050 AD the chronicles cease to mention the Chudes. ? ! $ ! B " $
2.3.1. The Long Barrow Culture
There has been heavy disagreement about the ethnic background of the so-called long ! kurgans) and sopka graves.5 The former are found in the Pskov–Novgorod– M *++( *$ ` " Z ! " 9 *++( *`,$ > " " w ª ` century AD) B = > !" ú *++ &'`$ w ! ! = Z B 9 = Z ^ w *++( *&B *'($ w &~(, &+& 9 ! ! ; $ ? " B ! - @ " &~'& " &~`, &~`+ &~+$ ! w ª ª ! w" &~ &,+M&,& &~C *+M** " &~+, # &~,+ ú *++ &' $ w ª Culture seemingly spread to the Polotsk and Smolensk regions and further to the Z $ ª && century AD. The Primary Chronicle, or Povest vremennykh let [PVL] tells of a tribe called Golyad [~ East Galindies] w &~~' &+`$ @ *++( &'C B B ª @ ' ` M( Z$ ! " ! ª ; <= " ! < - entation of Sedov. The Baltic area also included the environs of Polotsk and Smolensk, $ w ! $
5 The question of the sopka graves is so controversial that there is no possibility to treat this subject in this article. 210
" ª ! Z Latgalians. Kriiska and Tvauri (2007: 193) report that after the Age of Migrations (5th–6th Z " ; <= w ^ $ " w ª ª ! $ B later became Finnic (Machinskiy 1990: 116–119). Slavs undoubtedly began to move w ª ! millennium at the latest. Vote (Ryabinin 1997: 4)
Ingrians (ibid. 1997:Svir’ 62)
Vyborg Ladoga Chud-toponyms the southern boundary of Finnic hydronyms the boundary of the Long Barrow Culture (ibid. 1997: 17)
St. Petersburg V e p s Neva Syas Volkhov Tikhvin V o t e I n g r i a n s
Narva Luga Chudovo Chudskoyeskkooyye ozeroo ? Chudes Msta
Novgorod Population of the Long Barrow Culture Ilmen ? Chudes
Pskov Lovat
Map 1% W? ' ? ? , : ; z & ' @ ' Z: = $^^{ _ ; % $ " ; % $\% W? , : ? Chud-toponyms and the southern boundary of Finnic hydronyms (see also Map 11). ; <= " " > w *&&
Ääninen FINLAND Vychegda Svir Laatokka St. Petersburg Pietari Sukhona
Volkhov
the area of the Long Unþa Barrow Culture
Vjatka theVetluga boundary of Baltic and Finno-Ugric tribes in theMari-El Migration Niþnij- NovgorodAge (Kriiska & TvauriKazan 2007: 148) Volga Oka the area of the Dyakovo Culture (Patrushev 2000: 90) Dnieper Sura Ryazan
Map 2. The boundary of Finno-Ugrian and Baltic tribes in the Age of Migrations (Kriiska & W' "##{ $_\%
2.3.2. Dyakovo Culture (9th century BC–7th century AD)
" ! !" ! Baltic and Finno-Ugrian tribes during the Late Dyakovo Culture (3th–7th centuries Z w ª ` M&+ Z " ! &~~( &`& $ " ^ " ? B Z B < $ $ _ &~('B ; $ 'C = > $ $ 9 *+++ ~+ &~~~ `` " &~ &'`M&`, # " &~( (`$ ? B a considerable part of the Novgorodian Chudes most likely lived under the influence of the Upper-Volgaic Late Dyakovo Culture. 2.3.3. Medieval Novgorod " B Novgorod, has been dated to around 850 AD and the earliest material of Novgorod ~*`M~`+ Z = *++ ,`$ ! ! Nerev|skiy konets and a street called Chudintsevaya ulitsa in the late medieval Novgorod (ibid. 2006: 368).6 ? = > B " D)D I ó!D) D 4 ó(D) D are linked to the Meryans (Ahlqvist 1999: 627). 9 ! ! ! " @ $ " &, &' centuries, and are commonly thought to have been made by Chudes (Uino 1997: 191, Fig. 6:14.). Altogether at least 64 horse-motif pendants have been found (ibid. 1997: 192 reference to Sedova 1981: *CM,' " ! &~C&$ ! " ; < Ugrian cultures of the Oka and Upper Volga area. A figure of a horse-shaped pendant !" " ! &~~( &C*B ; $ '(B !\ &+ ! $ = = > B called Chudskoy Stan.7 It belongs to the group V according to the classification of " ! B $ = ! " Ç?ÇB ! ! " ÇÇ " ! &~C& @ nakhodok, numbers 639–642). " ! B = < " ! - " @ > ! w w $ | " ! < - w " ! &~~( '~B ; $ &,$$ ? " type represented by the Uglich pendant is not common in the Meryan core areas. "B " ! &~~( &C~M&C& ! by some subgroup, different from the actual Meryans. Proper Meryan horse-pendants " Ç>?? " ! " - " ² @ " _ ´ *++ *(($ B Nerevskiy Konets and Chudintsevaya ulitsa "B B ! B - dition of the Upper-Volgaic art of horse-shaped pendants in Novgorod as late as the 14th century AD. 6 From an anthroponym Chudin Q R$ 7 Stan $ ; <= " " > w *&, 2.4. The old Russian chronicles ! " B $ $ B " B B $ X ? B " " ! ! " - !" $ ? " !" the Povest vremennykh let (PVL) of Mordvins, Cheremis, Livonians, Kurians and Zhemgalians are taken as reliable, but the mentions of Chudes and Meryans have been questioned only because they have no continuous presence up to modern times. Of 9>wB B ! ! $ $ 9 " w *++ *`($ Nonetheless, the description of the ethnic groups seems reliable because these groups $ 9 ² M Mª _ ´ 8 , || [Volga–Oka area]: !, , , [north-eastern area]: Ȍ , || [Baltic area]: ! ú J > ! B (Lithuania), Ȍ (Latvian Zhemgals), (Latvian Kurians), ª group), (Livonians) (PVL). On these grounds, my opinion is that there is no rea- ! !" Chude, Merya and Muroma. This is proven also by the ethnonymic toponyms that have been preserved ! ( *++! `*$ 9>w ! " " _ !" princes of Kiev as a part of the common army (Lihatshov 1994: 20,24). At a later B 9>w " &+,+B $ ú " J ^ ^ ! $ &~~' ~$ " ! < ^ B $ " B " &+'*B " ú ! $ &~~' ~~$ ? ú ! ! ú ! J @ B > B ^ $ ! ; <= $ ! ! " paganism that is constantly reported by the PVL. A very typical story from the PVL ! year 1040 “in the Land of the Chudes” (Lihatshov 1994: 115). The story reflects the ! " $ ? " B $ B " state, the migration of Slavs continued rather peacefully, leading to a gradual change $ C ! !" $ 214 3. Research material and methods ? ? "B ! " in the present study are very demanding and therefore valid methods are needed. The problem is first of all due to the lack of research history, and secondly to the fact that there is no successor of the language(s) behind the substrate names. The latter point especially makes it very difficult to find reliable etymologies. 3.1. Names under investigation 3.1.1. Material of toponyms At first it must be mentioned that the object of this research are names of large bodies $ " " ! " et al. 2008: 122–125).9 As for microtoponyms, 71% of the toponyms of Kurhila vil- lage in Asikkala parish in Finland have disappeared over the course of 200 years. The C&; ! $ *++C &**M&*,$ Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that only a very small amount of microtoponyms named by the Chudes some 500–1000 years ago can be preserved. > w ! - lected by choosing hydronyms from the maps Atlas Novgorodskaya oblast (ANO) 1: 200 000 and Obzorno-Geograficheskaya karta w99 & '++ +++ $ In addition, I have utilized the material collected by Vasmer and published in his Wörterbuch der Russischen gewässernamen I–V (1961–1969). Toponyms collected from maps are problematic. Firstly, maps may contain mistakes. Secondly, most of " ! $ "B ! $ small amount of microtoponyms is compensated by the fact that the names of large ! " ! $ ^ ! ! B not hinder achieving an adequate result. 3.1.2. Substrate vocabulary and toponyms When researching the substrate names of any particular area, one must choose the $ - " ! $ | ? ! $ *++ &&M*` *++! &`M`* !\ $ X ! ! " ~ Q " R ! B - " " B B ! $ ; <= " " > w *&` B *++' `M,' !" &~~* *( & - ! " * ! " - " ! " ! , linguistic structures that are not typical in the dominant language are frequent in the ' ! ! $ ? ! ! " M " " ! M terms, fishing, hunting, etc. (cf. Saarikivi 2006a: 39–41). Kiviniemi has discussed the question of original languages reflected in the topo- nyms of Finland. According to him, toponyms can be studied by comparing topo- " " " $ ? ! - ! @ &~C+ ,*+ " *++& &*,M&*$ ! " "B ! " " " ! ! ! " $ | B B ! _ B ! ! " ! " (Saarikivi 2006b: 16). ? ? @ in order to select the corpus of toponyms. I have searched for toponyms alien to the $ ª" " ! B it is possible to outline the focus areas of different toponyms and name types. The areas of comparison are Tver and Yaroslavl oblasts and the Oka and Svir catchment $ " ; @ > ! $ " Mordvin and Finnic, as these are the most presumable cognate languages. `%"% D , ? , , : , The starting-point of the research is that there are certain linguistic reasons to believe that a name originates from the predecessors of the modern dominant population. The " ! B $ `%"%$% D , X ! " " B " ! ! ! $ ? " " _ " ! B ! @ &~~+ ,C $ 216 look as obscure as proper substrate names. Old anthroponyms are especially difficult $ " ! B ! ! " $ ? ; " Ikali, Hollo and ParoB oikonyms Ikaalinen, Hollola and Parola are derived (NA). The global evidence pre- supposes that also in the present research area, there should be numerous toponyms " $ " ` - -lya. 3.2.2. Phonetic points Phonetic features may reveal a toponym as a substrate name. Saarikivi (2006b: &` " " B Kukas|järvi, Kuukas|järvi, Kuukka « K%{ID Proto-Saami *I%II Q R$ ? " " ! $ " B Konshur ~ Konchur #ª *,& Konchura ~ Konshura ~ Konshchura ~ Konsyera #ª &~C$ The variants of the second syllable consonants 6, š, š’, s’ [, , , ] point to a < $ ? ! ! ; <= Â4 or a sibilant óV. 3.2.3. Structure of names Matveyev (2001: 73–75) believes it is important to pay attention to those morpho- ! " ! $ ? B " - " $ ; <= " B ; terminology, are called a specific (Finn. määriteosa) and a generic (Finn. perusosa). ; B Jänis|järvi, jänis Q R järvi Q R $ same structure is found also in other Finno-Ugrian languages, e.g. Mari Shem|yer « *Šem|jer Q! R In|erka « LD D ID Q! R  " Peche|khra « óÚD6D; ) /ä Q R *++ &$ ? " " ! ! a noun construction, such as R Qª RB \ R Qª w R$ B " ; <= " B " $10 A generic is attached to the Finno-Ugrian ª " $ $ Pää|järvi järvi Q R is a generic (Kiviniemi 1990: 106). Thus, any toponym in the research &+ ; B @ ! ; B ; < Ugrian system commonly occurs: Vedl|ozero, Syam|ozero, etc. These are partial translations from the originally Finno-Ugrian names Viel|järvi, Säämä|järvi. ; <= " " > w *&( ! Q R Q R $ $ D), -khra, -yuga) is most likely of Finno-Ugrian origin. ? ! " " " $ Q! R Q R$ X ; <= " B " (2001: 188–248) also uses the term Q R " $ ª " " B ? ! " $ formant is espe- cially useful. ; stem of a name. | B spe- cific and generic ; " ! ; <= ! B Q! R Q R$ Saarikivi (2006b: 18) has defined formants as phonotactic types of single-mor- pheme opaque toponyms having a characteristic feature that makes it possible to $ " " Kolo|kshaB kolo- ½Q R " " 3.3. Toponyms and the language in the background " ! ! been evaluated and a large stratum of presumable toponyms of substrate origin are $ B " ! " ! $ ? tackle this question, various scholars have utilized methods that are introduced in the $ 3.3.1. Formants connected with different types of toponyms and areal distribution " ! " ! B B $ *++C ,~$ B " " " B ! " " one of her methods in order to study substrate names. Accordingly, she has paid much attention to structural characteristics of toponyms. This usually means analysis of for- mants (Mullonen 2002: 183). In the present research, areal distribution and analysis " `$ ? a toponym refer to the same areal direction, the toponym presumably belongs to the " " $ ; important also because they reflect in many cases different phases of a language shift (Mullonen 2002: 85–96).11 3.3.2. Semantic typology It is very important to define the most common types and motifs of naming. It is pos- sible to accomplish this by comparing research of semantic typology " ! *++! & $ *++C &&`$ One useful method for defining an etymology is to utilize semantic opposites such as ! M B M B ! M " *++& C` *++~ &~M&(C$ 3.3.3. Comparative linguistic study " ! ! " "B ! " $ ! " there are several substrate languages. A presumption might lead to a vicious circle and subjective study. For these reasons, the starting point in the present research is more complicated than e.g. in Pitkänen’s (1985) studies concerning the Finnish toponyms 11 ? < " see Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5. ; <= " " > w *&~ < " B R *++! " ; ! " 9 $ "B " !" *++* **CM*~+ ! 9 < ! " ! $ researchers mentioned above had a relatively clear standard of comparison, making the etymologies remarkably more reliable. The task becomes much more complicated ! " $ " $ B ! *++' ! " B ! $ B " B ! $ 3.3.4. Productivity of the types of toponyms R " " " $ ; 3.3.5. Partial translation ? < B ! - " $ M Q < R !" $ $ M ! " ! @ $ $ ; Hiim|d’ogi ¬ I Q | R (Mullonen 2002: 105–106). If an original generic can no longer be recognized as a generic, the result may be an epexegesis$ " B " ! " # ',M'CB " " !0 ;), È ;), # ;), and Ú 0 ;) # ''M'`$ ? " - ent Finno-Ugrian (or Finnic) layers. The speakers of the latter stratum (Veps) seem- ingly did not understand the element - /- ! ½« Âjäri Q R - järv $ 220 One can assume that the more generics of a substrate language are represented in B ! $ ? B ! " B < ! is presumable. During the process of the language shift, the bilingual population had B ! - $ ª" B finally obscured and generics became pure formants. This is the case e.g. in the upper B 3.3.6. Ethnonyms ^ " ! " B " ! $ ? " " " - " $ ; B @ ; " ruotši Q R ??? &+C$ ? " " enough, their testimony increases remarkably. Also Matveyev (2001: 65–71) has introduced them as useful tools of onomastics. I have earlier used this method to some " *++~ &CM&(+B &$ `%_% : D , ! B ? " B " " " $ Ahlqvist took their starting point in smaller collection areas that they then broad- $ ; B ? on previously gathered material or map names because my research area is very large.12 ? " > R " Die Alten Bevölkerungsverhältnisse Russlands im Lichte der Sprachforschung (1941). In a study like this, phonetic matters become even more important. A study of comparative " $ "B " *++&B *++'B *++( B ! " chose smaller subregions from among these large areas (ibid. 2004: 111–187). &* R Q " ! " ; R *++( ; $ ; <= " " > w **& !\ " " ! - guages. Thus, many of the methods of defining etymology used by other research- B ! ! " < languages. Because there is no continuation of those languages, one must choose as " " ! cognate languages and reconstructed proto-languages. One can assume that in most ! !" ; $ ! $ " " !" ! ! " "$ $ $ ó; ) /ä Q RB ó%{N Q B ! dragging road over dry land’, ó!D) D Q " RB *veksa Q ! ! RB ó # D Q RB 9# 9 Q RB óD! Q! RB ó Q R &~~(B *++'B *++ " *++ &,,M*,, *++* *&*M*&,B *~& *++~ &(*M&C+ *++( &&`M&& &~C`$ ? B " " ! ! $ ! " " ! ! $ $ kub-toponyms (Kubena $ ! $ $ Q! B R # &~(+ 9 <9 guƄ b Q! B R w" G # " " &~~~ C'$ < B 9;= Âukti Q R &~CC `, »I{N can pre- ! " ! $ $ ! ! " " ! "$ # " ! " " $ ; <= spoken number at most around 50. Among these the most phonetically and topo- graphically reasonable alternatives can be found. Saarikivi (2004: 186–187) has presented the 20 most common Finnish specifics of lakes and 20 Saami specifics " " ; w $ B ! Q RB Q RB Q RB Q! RB Q RB Q "RB Q ¼ RB Q RB Q R$ ? B ; Q RB Q! RB Q RB Q RB Q RB Q RB Q RB Q RB Q RB Q RB Q R Q! RB Q - _ RB Q RB Q !\ RB Q RB Q R different species of salmon. B B " " ! ! Q R$ ? " !" B " ! " " " stem vyaz- " ; <= " $ be derived from an original * Q R$ ! B e.g. Mordvin D and Finnish { ó Q R ??? '(C$ ? B 222 is topographic evidence for the etymology * Q R *++~ &(`$ ? ! " " ! ; < Ugrian specifics, and for this reason it is possible to find a phonetically acceptable etymology if there is only a large enough quantity of toponyms. In order to discover " B " areal distribution of toponyms. ? " > ! ; = <> ½ " B ½ $ " some stems and specifics can phonetically be derived from both Finnic languages B " B $ specifics or stems include ó !0 /9 , ó #( , óI * and *msta, commonly found in the Upper Volga and Oka area. In such cases formants, core areas of the names and an ! ! " ! $ | B " ! " " *++! *&B ! &$ ? " ! " " B ! " " " " " $ *++C &&`$ ! " " - B $ | B ! than one case of variants to assure us that it is really a matter of translation, and ! $ " " !" ! *++* #$ ? ! "- $ " ! B " $ ! " " a cluster of specifics occurring in various types of topographic objects in the same $ $ B B " $ them may have preserved the original specific better than the hydronym itself. It is possible that the hydronyms have been translated in the process of language shift, but some other object of the cluster has preserved its original form. 3.5. The problem of adoption The adoption of toponyms from a substrate language into a dominant prestige language ! $ ^ " " "B " "$ Saarikivi (2006b: 23, table 2 and 25, table 3) has presented tables concerning adoptions from Finnic into 9 $ *++* ,~M(* ! " " $ " *++& &,+M&`& !\ ; <= $ ! ! ! ; <= " " > w **, ! B ! % *++ % > *++~ " $ Finno- Slavic Finno- Slavic Finno- Slavic Ugrian Ugrian Ugrian t , (non-initial) . I a , (early) k , (non-initial) s , , , e , ", , , p , (non-initial) h, , Ø (initial) ee -tt- -hk- , , i , -kk- % o, oo , (late) -pp- u , (early) m , 6, 4, c (non-Finnic) ü , , -mb- , , , (non- ä!, (early), Finnic) (2.syll.) ö", ½ Table 1. The most common rules of adoption from Finnic and other Finno-Ugrian languages Z! ' \ ! ' ,% W? ! ' , , * ? , ? % _% = & ; , ? @ ' & ' and Leningrad oblasts As mentioned above, it is often assumed in the literature that the Finno-Ugrian tribes w 9 = > ª ; $ $ # &~~( &`~M&' $ |" " - " $ " ; " " !! # ; B w w 1). Some researchers have suggested hypotheses concerning the area presented above ! " B ! ! $ ; @ <> " " Iron Age (7th–4th centuries BC) found in the southern coastal area of Lake Ladoga ! 9 <; ú *++ &'& Uino 2006: 363).13 According to the terminology of Petri Kallio, these tribes later ! ; ! # Finland (Kallio 2007: 243). Names of settlements in the area of Novgorod are irrelevant from this research’s B ! " &( " ! @ @ " ? ? " @ &~~' &`M&(&$ | B migration could not change the overall picture of hydronyms. The same concerns the @ " " - nyms in the vicinity of Leningrad. &, " # " w $ 224 Finland Ääninen Svir LadogaLaatokka PietariSt. Petersburg Volkhov Tikhvin 542 233 Novgorod Vologda 282 Msta Staraya Borovichi Russa 548 1796 Mologa Valday Bezhetsk 477 1945 Lovat Ostashkov 475 265 Volga Map 3% , : ? D : : & , ? ${ ? , } Z: & $^^_ $x_\% I have divided the possible Finnic toponyms in Leningrad and Novgorod oblasts into $ " ! ; $ $ " & non-Finnic formants, 2) specifics typical in the Upper Volga and Oka catchment area , " ! " $ ; <= " " > w **` 4.1. Leningrad oblast Finnic hydronyms (visible on Map 4 according to the numbering):14 1) Avloga ~ Aulokanjoki cf. Aula|nko ; aula possibly ~ Fin. oulu Q\ R 2) Khabolovo oz. ~ Haapalanjärvi Q (-la-formant refers to a settlement, a farm or a family) 3) Khepoyarvi oz. ~ Hepojärvi Q R 4) Kostuya ~ *Kostoja Q R 5) Kusega ~ *Kuusjogi Q R 6) Kusi|nka ~ *Kuusijoki Q R 7) Lembolovskoye oz. ~ Lempaalanjärvi Q w R #D(W9 Q " R 8) Pinega ~ *Pienjogi Q R 9) Sestra ~ Siestarjoki Q R 10) Voitolovka ~ Voittolanjoki « " Voittola « voitto Q "R 11) Voloyarvi oz. ~ Vuolejärvi « ! " 9 < Q R 12) Kavgolovskoye oz. ~ Kaukolanjärvi « " Kaukola 13) Azika ~ Asikka « " Asikka 14) Lava ~ *Lavajoki Q\ R 15) Kivuya ~ *Kivioja Q 22) Lipyarvi oz. ~ *Lepjärvi or *Lippojärvi Q R Q R 23) Shuyarvi-Shu, bol. ~ *Šuojärvišuo15 Q R Possibly Finnic hydronyms: 16) Galmach|ikha ½« ; halme Q[ R B ! ! " w 9 ^ > 17) Rap|lya ½« ; rapa Q! R &'  ; $ $ 15 Phonetically this name occurring close to Tikhvin seems to originate from the South Karelian dialect " !" @ &( century AD). The Veps form should be Sojärvso. 226 4.2. Novgorod oblast No certain Finnic hydronyms found. Possible Finnic hydronyms: 24) Andolovka ½« ; antaa Q R " ¬ ÂAndola. Hydronyms and- $ <# in names of rivers is $ 25) Ilmen « Â#(D ½« ; ilma Q B R$ |" " il’m- are com- ` -er (see Section 5, formant -er). 26) Yaim|lya « ÂÄimläj ½« ; äimä Q R$ ; ( PU *äjmä and there- fore the stem here is not necessarily of Finnic origin. The formant -lya is very `$ 27) Kiba ½« ; kivi Q R$ * " " $ ? the Novgorodian dialect * * is usual (Zaliznyak 2004: 55). 28) Kirva ½« ; kirves Q R$ " " Finnic I !K # ,(BC,$ "B ; kirves could ! . Kirva ! " Kirvu > " @ ? B ! ! " - inated from an anthroponym. 29) Msta, Mstizhskoye oz. ½« ; musta Q! R$ " msta- " " B w @ " _ `$ 30) Oskuya, Oskuyskoye oz. ½« ÂOskaoja. | B $ Oskom|lya in Tver ! ~'B &*, ½« " Oska ! Uska names in Finland. 31) Rabe|zha ½« ^ $ raba Q! R$ \ " B ! hand the formant - " `$ 32) Voldom|itsa ½« ; Âvalkama. ó #I ( " ! $ | B voldom hydronyms occur also in the Oka catchment area. ? w ! B the certain cases are much more frequent B ! $ ~ " " " ! = > $ The hydronyms Oskuya and Kirva " ! " " ½ *9I 9 I B ½ Âkirves/z ¬ kirv-) or those names are not of Finnic origin. The ele- ment -uyaB B ! ; Âoja Q B R " 2001: 258). This makes the Finnic origin of the name more probable. The river (and lake) Oskuya " > "$ " - nym Kirva can be attached to the toponym Kirvu > "$ " ! !" @ > $ ; <= " " > w **( In Tver oblast there are some hydronyms that can be interpreted as Finnic: { N I oikonym Khititsy &(Cª, « ; *hiite Q B - ping place’, Yarvy oz. ~~' « ; Âjärvi Q RB Kagra `(* « ; *kagra Q R ! ! " *kägrä Q RB Kivy (& « ; *kivi Q RB Mushto (' « ; *musta Q! R$ ! B @ ! , @@ B @ &~~' &B $ ? B " mušta and kägrä or kagra " @ @@ ??? ,C& @@ B ~$ One must remember that these hydronyms are located in the catchment area of the > M > M " "$ Finnic hydronyms Syväri certain Vyborg L a d o g a uncertain the southern boundary of 7 1 certain Finnic names 3 11 9 12 21 18 15 14 5 Neva 8 St. Petersburg Syas 2 10 Tikhvin 4 6 19 22 Volkhov 23 13 17 Narva 30 Luga 20 24 Chudovo 28 Peipus 32 Msta Novgorod 29 26 27 25 16 Borovichi Ilmen 31 Pskov 29 Lovat Map 4% ; , ? & ' @ ' 228 In Novgorod oblast ! B w #(D! ó #(D 4 N $ $ @ *++& ( *++* *,' N R are often ! ; $ | B ! " = > `$ ? B Ääninen Svir Laatokka PietariSt. Petersburg Sukhona Volkhov Il’m-hydronym Novgorod area Unzha Mst-hydronym Vjatka Vetluga Mst-oikonym Volga Mari-Elarea Volga Kazan Dnieper Oka Ryazan Sura Map 5. Il’m- and Mst- @ ' W' ' and in the territory of the Oka catchment area. ; <= " " > w **~ ? " ; @ B Ilma- " " Q R Q R ! 9 < ÂeƩ # Q R ÂeƩ #( Q "B ½ R ! ! " ; *++~ &(&B C$ ; B ; B ! " Ilma|järvi # *+++ +'$ ? > Ilmee ~ Ilmet|jokiB Ylimäinen Finn. Q R *++* *,CM*''B ! " @ " \ Ilmiinoja and its source lake Ilmiinjärvi # *+++ `&^$ ? ; < ilma " Q R *++* 235). It is geographically natural that Lake *#(D refers semantically to a upper posi- " w w w ? > $ | B w Â#(D seems very improbable. B olhava (Volkhov ~ in Finnic Olhava Q B R @ Isthmus (Nissilä 1975: 28–29). The shores of the Volkhov are in many places very B ! ! w ? w " &` " $ ? ! the original meaning of the hydronym Volkhov ~ Olhava Q R$ ? B w ? B > ! "B @ B Ilmen|ka **`$ " ! grounds of the motif ilma Q R$ X ! ! and thinking objectively, the name *#(D ! " ! > ; B the formant D , the phonetics and the areal connection (Map 5). The strongest evidence against the hypothesis of a Finnic Chudian population in Novgorod oblast is the fact that there does not occur any remarkable amount of those ; B " B ; " $ $ !D( ó ! D( , # , matka ó ( NI , randa *-ranta, luda *-luoto, sel’ga *-selkä, I9 I ó I9 I , # (* *-lampi, #( ó #( , korba *-korpi, pelda/palda *-pelto (Matveyev 2001: 297– 298). The same concerns specifics that, according to Matveyev, are the most common ; ! $ $ I{! ó {D!, D!D { óD!D{, vekhk/ I{I óD{I , I{ # ó { # , I 0 óI N , I I óI I , I9I óI9%II%, I9 * óI9 W , I9#I óI9#II , I9)N óI9)ND, I9NI óI9NI , I% óI% , lakhn-/# K! ó# {! , # (* ó# (( , #DK( ó#D{(, #D(* ó#D(W , *lempo, # !0 ó# !N% , ( NI ó( NI , myagr-/megr « Âmäkrä, myand-/mend « Âmänty, WD#0 *pelto, W I{I óW {I , ) !0 ó) !N , )D* ó)DW9, #( ó #( , ND) óND) , hab/K * ó{ W , khavd/K 0 ó{ %N , khavk/I{ %I ó{ %II , khain/I{D ! *heinä, kheb/I{DW ó{DW9, khid/khit/I{ ó{ ND, I{ ( ó{ (9, khong/K9!K *honka, khjarg/khjark/kherg/kherk « Âhärkä (Matveyev 2004: 33–80). | `& `` ; " Novgorodian birchbark documents mentioned by Saarikivi (2007) do not occur in 230 oikonyms of Novgorod oblast. If a great number of bearers of these names had lived there, those names should be reflected in oikonyms. Four (4) uncertain names are found: the anthroponym Ù * ! (2007: 210) ~ Libya [Valday], the anthropo- nym D# ; I (ibid. 2007: 215) ~ oikonym Velyash|eva Gorka [Luga], the anthropo- nym I K # (ibid. 2007: 220) ~ oikononym Ikand|ovo [Valday] and the anthroponym # 6 (ibid. 2007: 222) ~ oikonyms Melecha [Valday] and Mele|gusha [Tikhvin].16 ? " ! > " ! - " ; w $ ? > " w B @ ? on toponyms is very possible. The anthroponym Uda, occurring in the document no. 124 (Saarikivi 2007: 226– **(B $ _ " *++' `C B Uda toponyms B 9 ! B e.g. Uda (ANO6-7V1) [Dedovichi, Pskv obl.], Uda|l oz. (ANO39V4) [Borovichi, Nvg. obl.], Uda|kha ,&#& ²9 B 9 ! $´B Udo|vishchi (ANO26A3) [Ljubytino, Nvg obl.] and Udo|m|lya '+#, ²= " B ! $´$ ª ! B ! 9 Uda " !" $ *++( 227) suggests that this name from the birchbark documents originated from an old Finnish anthroponym *»N »N%# , Utti, Utupää, but he also states that its etymology $ " ! ! both in Finnish and in the (Novgorodian) Chudian language. 5. Formants of hydronyms in Novgorod oblast -oda ( )17 Vong|oda [Kotlas], Vong|uda [Onega], Volg|uda, Lamb|uda, Novg|uda, Chemb|uda, Ø%! %0 óØ%!K %0 [Sev. Dvina], Tung|uda [Belomorsk]. Matveyev (2004: 21) believes that the formant originates ; <= \ Â< D /ä $ > korged Q RB Âval- ged Q RB 9#Krdo Q! R$ @ ²@ " _ ´ Udg|oda (AJO41), Sukh|oda #ª *&'B Shikh|oda #ª *&'$ " R - " $ ; B Ù (* %0 Finnic lamb Q R Vong|uda « ; 9.I Q R ! \ as the hypothesis of Matveyev presupposes. 16 In the Upper Oka the hydronym Melech|eva occurs. Melecha in Valday should perhaps be connected ! <; <= $ 17 In Novgorod oblast: Chag|oda (ANO13A5, ANO19B5), Chag|od|oshcha (ANO6-7A8), Chag|od|skoye oz. (ANO34B2), Tig|oda &*#*B Tig|oda (ANO14A2). ; <= " " > w *,& " " ! from the Finnic languages. Phonetically impossible are Chagoda and Chembuda, because of the initial *6. w " <; Tigoda, Tunuda, Udgoda, Sukhoda, Shikhoda and probably also Novguda. The stem volg- " ! ; "B ! " = > area. Interestingly enough, the formant -oda/-uda " g (or the spirant ó « Âg or the combination *.K ½ ó KK ) and b. This seems to refer to "$ ? B B ! - Â;9 or ó;9K Q RB ¬ -ra ( )18 The formant - ) occurring in the names of rivers is very common in the Upper Volga and Oka catchment areas, e.g. Cheche|ra ~ Checho|ra #ª &+~B&'CB Kamo|ra #ª *,B*`CB Kato|ra #ª *,+B Koya|ra #ª &*~B Koshi|ra #ª &++B Vyaze|ra #ª *``B Voymi|ra #ª **B Vikshe|ra (AJO37), Cheche|ra (AJO11), Checho|ra (AJO87), Pezo|ra (ATO106). There are also numerous formants of the type - ) : Ist|ra #ª '+B&+B&+(B Kost|ra #ª *&(B Kust|ra #ª *(+B Mat|ra #ª &~`B Pem|ra #ª *``B Pom|ra #ª *`B Sukh|ra #ª &~(B Shim|ra #ª *&&$ ! - a, e, i, o ! $ 18 In Novgorod oblast: Checho|ra (ANO28V2), Yashche|ra (ANO6-7A1), Bol. Vishe|ra &'#'B Mal. Vishera (ANO23A6), Bol. Vishe|r|ka (ANO23B5). 232 The areal distribution (Map 6) offers the most likely possibility to connect the Novgorodian formant -ra = > $ is true especially because the Novgorodian (Nvg) specifics of hydronyms have coun- $ Chechora $ Chechora #ª &+~B&'C ² ´B Yashchera $ Yashcher|ka #ª &&& ² ´B Vishera vs. Vikshera (AJO37) [Yaroslavl].19 It is possible that the formant in question can be derived from an original generic *) { Q R$ ? > Rha. &`~` Volga flu olim Rha Q > B " R$ &`~` denoted the Volga as Rha occidental Q R @ Rha orientalis Q R$ Z % G % &`(& Volga Rha Q Volga’. On the basis of these maps, it seems that ó){ ) Q B stream’ (in Meryan-Muroma). This idea is supported also by such variants of hydro- nyms as Voymi|ra ~ Voymi|ga #ª **B È%I{ ) 4 È%I{ # óÈ% #; #ª &~( and the names Nev|ra #ª **, Nev|ley #ª *'*B *'$ Laatokka St. Petersburg Pietari Sukhona Volkhov Vologda Novgorod Msta Mologa Unzha Vetluga Volga Nizhniy- Novgorod Volga Klyazma Oka Moscow Dnieper Oka Sura Ryazan -ra-formants Penza Map 6. The area of the hydronyms with the formant -ra. 19 The variation of sh ~ ksh " " ! -sh/-ksh. ; <= " " > w *,, -lya ( ) In Novgorod oblast and close to its borders -lya- " ! in footnote 20 (numbering according to ANO):20 General view &~~C *~B '' &~~C! &' ! 9 &~(' *+M*&B *( stated that both formants -lya ( !) and -l’ ( ) can be traced back to the same origin ^ _" lej and Moksha läj Q R$ *++! `* - lar opinion. Some variants of the same names support this idea: Mar|ley ~ Mar|lya #ª *'&B Tishem|lya ~ Tishim|l’ #ª &$ | B " that the matter is very complicated and it is possible that the formant -lya has several B " $ ? ? alternatives. Most of the -lya-toponyms are names of rivers. In Novgorod (ANO), Tver (ATO) and Smolensk (ASO) oblasts, 37 toponyms are rivers, 20 settlements, 12 lakes and 6 other natural sites. At least 10 of the oikonyms can be derived from names of rivers and many others from the names of lakes and other sites. This proves that -lya $ Areal distribution (Map 7) In Novgorod oblast -lya-toponyms are concentrated in the boundaries of Novgorod and Tver oblasts $ " - $ " B e.g. Yaim|lya ½ *Äim|läj [Krestitsy], Tuleb|lya ½ *Tulema|läj ² " ´$ The specifics Þ ( ó;( and Ø%#D* *tulema might be interpreted as Finnic, ! ! ! ! 9 <= $ PU *äjmä Q RB *toli Q R &~CC `,B `'+$ ? ! a remarkable concentration of -lya- - Z Z $ Z $ ^ " B ! " ª ; <= $ 20 Settlements (11) Gadom|lya (40V3), Khotim|lya (55A2), Loshchem|lya '&#`B *Sitom|lya (6- 7A4), *Sukrom|lya (6-7A7), *Tuleb|lya ,,#`B Tukho|lya (35A4), *Tushem|lya (19B4), *Udom|lya '+#,B Zhelom|lya ,C, rivers (14) Tsynov|lya (53A4), Dup|lya (35A5), Izlom|lya (52B2), Yaim|lya (36B2), Korkom|lya (30A3), Nikom|lya (17A5), Pyardom|lya (17A6), Radu|lya (25A5), Rap|lya (16A2)~Ryap|lya (16B1), Sitom|lya (LPNP:L5/N), Sukrom|lya (ATO251A1), Shadom|lya *C#*B Tuleb|lya ,'>* lakes (7) Chuchem|lya (27V5), Karkom|lya (40B3), Radu|lya (26A2), Retom|lya (17V5), Sudom|lya (18B1), Udom|lya '+#,B Zdym|lya &C>, Gorodom|lya (isle) (54V2), Sudom|lya (marsh) (18B1).  " " " $ 234 Stems of hydronyms based on anthroponyms " Ääninen Svir Laatokka PietariSt. Petersburg Volkhov Sukhona Sheksna Vologda Novgorod Unzha -lya-toponym -mlya-toponymVjatka In Novgorod, Volga Mari-ElLeningrad, Tver, Nizhniy- Smolensk, Novgorod YaroslavlVolga Kazan oblasts and in the Oka area Moscow Oka the boundary of Finno-Ugric population ca 1000 Oka AD according to Dnieper Ryazan Sura Sedov (Ryabinin 1997: 4) Map 7. The areal distribution of toponyms with the formants -lya and -(V)mlya. ; <= " " > w *,` Stems of hydronyms based on old dialectal Russian words " ! - ally related to obsolete cultural customs: Khatom|lya « ² G X ´ Q R Z ?> `',B Sukrom|lya « ² ¼9 ´ Q food, etc.’ (Dal IV 359), Tsynov|lya « Q ! ! R Z ?> 575), Posokh|lya « Q R R Z ??? ,,~B Zdym|lya « [Pskov] Q !\ R Z ? ($ Finno-Ugrian specifics Some of the -lya " ; <= $ ; B " of Novgorod there is Ø%#D* # óØ%#D( # " Q R Yaim|lya Q R$ ? Kev|lya #ª *` Q river’, Shuzh|lya #ª *`+ Q R Osh|lya #ª *`, ½« ÂAsh|lya Q river’. In the Mordovian names the formant -lya certainly has the same original form and meaning as Mordvin läj Q R$ Unknown stems of hydronyms Some of the specifics of lya- " $ Itom|lya, Korkom|lya, Pyardom|lya, Karm|lya, Oskom|lya and Kasp|lya. The last is ! " Z $ Z ! that ! ª $ w $ kaspinas Q !! R w &~C` &($ " " ! $ Etymology of the formant -lya ª ! ; <= " B ! " ª B " the original source language, if there really is only one etymological origin. The dis- ! ( Formant -om-/-emlya Among 54 -lya- " ? B *( " the element -om-/-em- (see Map 7). In most cases it is difficult to believe that all of " " ! $ ; B Drem|ov|lya *+&ª, Dremov ! B QZ R R$ - !" @ " ! " 21 Perd-/Pärd- " " " " ! ? <^ Âpertä Q R J = $ burd (Koivulehto 2006: 183). 238 w $ Tukhom|ichi is located close to the river. This type of naming by adding -ichi ! " " tradition. The construction consists of a personal name Tukhom : -ichi > " *++` *'B *'~ *++* C'M&+`$ -zha ( )22 ! $ ? $ " *++' *& ! ! " $ ? " - sider -{ to be derived from diminutive. The sibilant { of formants can pos- ! " ! ! Â" ~ Proto-Finnic diminutive * 66% (Saarikivi 2006b: 32). -sha -ksha -ksa ( )23 It seems that - { has the variants -ksa/-ksha. ! " ú > oblasts: Volo|ksha ~ Volo|sh|ka #ª &~ ó 9#9 , Shumo|ksha ~ Shumo|sh #ª &*B Kolo|ksha #ª *&+ J Kolo|sha #ª *&CB Tome|ksha ~ Tomu|sh|ka #ª *&* « ÂØ9( . | B ksa-/ksha < Z" B " < { formants occur: Lav|sha #ª &+B Nero|sh|ka #ª '& óD)9 , Pono|sha #ª &+`B Tol|sha #ª &'*B Ugre|sha #ª CCB $ < { " spread -ksa/-ksha. *++' &* $ | B " $ usually considered a reverse development, óI , according to the history of the ; <= $ $ ; $ vari|s : vari|ks|en [crow : crow’s] (cf. *++* *&(M***B 22 In Novgorod oblast: Kobo|zha (ANO28A3), Kobo|zha (ANO30A2), Molog|zha (ANO25V5), Orede|zh (ANO20B1), Rabe|zha (ANO47V5), Sere|zha (ANO55A3), Vereg|zha (ANO33A5), Volo|zha (ANO34V4), Volo|zh|ba (ANO17A5), Voro|zh|ba '&#'$ 23 In Novgorod oblast: Yere|sha (ANO21B5), Kolo|sh|ka ,*>* « ÂKolo|sha, Nurdy|sha (ANO33B5), Ragu|sha (ANO17B5), Shildu|sh|ka *`ª' « ÂShildu|sha, Mene|ksha (ANO14V2), Nudo|ksa (LPNP:K6/N). ; <= " " > w *,~ -st’ ( ) The Novgorodian hydronym Kerest’ (ANO14V2) has a correspondence Kerost’ (AJO110A1) in Yaroslavl oblast. ? B " " < " !" B " " formant -st’/-sta: in the Klyazma region Lakho|st’ #ª *&~B Nere|sta #ª &,(B Uro|sta #ª *&B Vob|sta #ª ,~B ú ! Sulo|st’ [a set- tlement] (AJO102), Shigolo|st’ (AJO80) and in Kostroma oblast Yakhru|st (TKKO36). " ; - Â< N (Finn. -sto/-stöB ^ $ ( )24 The formant -D) 4 D 4 D)9/-oro " " " D ID/jä kä and Mari jer/jär. (Ahlqvist &~~( *~ &~~C '* *+++ &M&C *++' &` *++ &*B &(M*+ " *++& *~+M 292.) The formant originating from shortened form - / Q R that occurs only in a > "B " " #B " ! ! $ " " ; järvi Q R B the Proto-Finno-Volgaic *järwä =^X ?? ,, ! B ! " " " ! « Â; ) _ cannot be derived from !" $ ! " ó I) ó )I. ª $ w $ ;%) Q! R « 9 24 In Novgorod oblast: 9¦ #(D! ó#( D (ANO34B2), Lam|er|skoye oz. (ANO36B3), Nev|ery oz. (ANO46B3), Never|ka (ANO 46B3), ÈD# K D) 9¦ ÈD) K D) (ANO54V2). 240 of Finno-Ugrian languages than -rk-. Proto-Uralic had liquid+plosive combinations, ! : ! " 9 @ B $ Proto-Saami *;) " ó; ) /ä and the *jädra/ä that occurs in the terri- tory of the Novgorodian Chudes (see the formant -dra ! ! - out difficulty from the root *jäkra/ä. Finnic *järve, ^ D ID M ; kä and Mari jer/jär can be derived from *järkä. In that case, the -kä of Mordvin jä |kä is not a diminutive marker as usually has been thought (SSA I 259), but part of the original stem. The element -i " ! ; w " " ! -vi, because Liv. ;) , Proto-Saami *;) , Mordvin *jä kä and Meryan ó; ) /ä refer Âa/ä in the second syllable.25 ^ järi is declined in the genitive as järve ^^X +, Âjärve and does not represent an independent development from the original root of the proto-language. " ! Q R< " " Novgorod oblast ! jer (jär « *järka/ä and *jädra/ä « *jäkra/ä hydronyms ! C$ ; D of the lake ó#(D ! Â;)I ó;) ó;) . The last stage *järi !" Yary|nya ² |!´ ,>,B 25 Sometimes an original *k/g ! " ! ; v $ $ W9) ) w borghare (SSA II 402) offering the phonetic possibility of ó;) ;) . 26 It is unlikely that the stem *serig is derived from a fish *serig Q R !" (2002: 235), because in Finland Särki|järvi Q R " ! # *+++ 272–273). The etymological background might be the same as Mordvin D D. Q R ¬ óÈD)D. ;) *Seriger Q R X ?> &~(+$ w > " B ! lake in the Volga catchment area. ; <= " " > w *'& -dra ( )27 The fact that in some ancient language in Novgorod and Tver oblasts there has been *jädra/ä can be concluded from -dra- *($ ? B Valday there occur such names of lakes as Yedr|ovo oz. (ATO50A1) and Yedr|itsa oz. ,*,$ ? Z w Edr|itsa oz. (ATO50A1). Some -dra-formants are found also in the Svir region Kuz|dra #*B in Yaroslavl oblast Savo|dra|nka (AJO67A1) and, on the boundaries of Vologda and Yaroslavl oblast Yashkon|dra (AJO22B1). ? Q RB Âjäri and *jädra/ä, " $ ? ! there may ! B O P O P C$ ? B " < B $ $ Â( % N Q! R (Map 5) and *järi Q R$ | B ! " ; *š { and ó6 N ! $ ? ! O P X " 9 <; 9 <; < > $ ! to Mordvin: WCh 6D)D ~ Mordv. 6 D Q! RB X lama ~ Mordv. lamo/ lama Q ¼! R " " ! B X N%( 4 Mordv. tumo/tuma Q R " " ! B ! " vel- Q R$ - Vel’giya ½ «  D#;9K Q R (ANO39A4) and some others vel-. Many of them are so small that it seems difficult to derive them from the Slavic stem Q! R$ ? ! deeply into this subject. O P ^ " " $ ^ jädra/ä ~ Meryan ó; ) /ä [*K 0]. There are also indications of a common 9# 9 Finno-Volgaic *ala Q R ^ " *++~ &(*$ O^ P " " & historical root *jäkrä Q R *  9. It is important _ ! " $ ; <= ! ! " ! $ 27 In Novgorod oblast Keza|dra oz. (ANO41V3), Lima|ndr|ovo oz. (ANO39A5), Limandrovka (ANO39A5), Nez|dr|inskoye oz. *`#,B Shabo|dro oz. (ANO40B1), Shabo|der|ka (ANO40B1), Sherego|dra oz. (ANO27B4), Tikhoman|dr|ica (ANO40V3), Tishi|dra oz. (ATO54A3). Proto-Saami Ääninen Vychegda Svir Laatokka Para- PietariSt. Petersburg Saami Finnic tribes Sukhona Volkhov “Eastern Sheksna Vologda Novgorod Msta Chudes” Mologa Unzha *jäkra/ä yakhr-, -khraVjatka “Western Chudes” Meryans Vetlugayedr-, -dra Volga < *jäkrä Mari-El yer- -er(o) -or(o) *järka/ä , Volga , Kazan Daugava < *järkä Moscow Klyazma ancient Oka *jäkrä-/*järkä- Oka boundary Dnieper Ryazan Sura Mordvins SW-boundary of Finno-Ugric populations Map 8. Yakhr- khra yedr- dra and yer-/yar er(o) -or(o) names of lakes in Central and North Russia and the possible boundary of the proto-language words *jäkra/ä and *järka/ä. -uya ( )28 = ! "B ; oja Q B R Matveyev 2001: 256–261). The specific Osk- may be a result of a metathesis oska ó9I Q R Âoksi Q! R$ Oska is possible, even ! ! ! -nda ( )29 The formant -nda has correspondences in Finnic toponyms (cf. in Finland Vesa|nto, Pyhä|ntäB ! = > $ Ile|nda #ª **CB Leve|nda #ª &~,B Uro|nda #ª *&B Shura|nda #ª *`*B Bol. & Mal. Kolo|nda (TKKO21), Meze|nda (TKKO21). The majority of these are located in Kostroma and Vladimir oblasts. The same formant also occurs in the region of southern Lake Onega 28 In Novgorod oblast: Osk|uya (ANO14B2), Osk|uy|skoye oz. (ANO14B3) 29 In Novgorod oblast: Vero|nda (ANO33A5) ; <= " " > w *', Luzha|nd|ozero (AVO12), Sula|nd|ozero (AVO12), Vera|nda #*B Yulo|nda #&CB Sura|nda #&,B Viksi|nda @ @&& Mullonen 2002: 199, 290–292). Ahlqvist (1992: 27–28) has pointed out that the formant -nda varies in central " Conclusions ; <= ! ! & Oka–Upper-Volgaic group, 2) the vast Finno-Ugrian group, 3) the Finnic group, 4) the local group and 5) the Finnic–Upper-Volgaic group. Many of these groups have con- " B ! ! " " B ! $ The Oka–Upper-Volgaic group contains the formants -ra, -lya and -er. The vast Finno-Ugrian group contains the formants -sha/-ksa/-ksha, -zha, -ma/-ba, -ga. The Finnic group has only the one representative -% ó9; . The local group is repre- !" ! óK 0 Chudovo Luga Oredezh Volkhov Msta Pestovo Novgorod Msta Borovichi Ilmen Shelon Mologa Kresttsy Valdayskoye oz. Formants of hydronyms: Valday -oda Velye oz. Shlino oz. -(V)ra Lovat Pola -lya Vyshniy -sha Volochek -zha Seliger oz. -ksha, -ksa -dra -st’ -er -nda the boundary -ma Kholm Novgorod oblast of Finno-Ugrian formants Map 9. Finno-Ugrian formants in Novgorod oblast. 6. The Finnic sound shifts *š > h > t and Novgorodian hydronyms One of the most essential sound shifts in Finnic is ó { and another is *6 ¬ t &~~~ ( @ *++( *,,$ ; " - ine names containing š, 6 and h. With the help of these names it is possible to verify " ; shifts did or did not take place. 6.1. Hydronyms with < š > To this category belong such hydronyms as Shabo|dro oz. (ANO40B1) ó *9 ;0) «  * Q R XX Shadomlya *C#* ½« Šadonläj Q R XX Shuya (ANO16V3) *šuj Q ! " " R " *šuj- " " " - tion) || Yashche|ra w99 '¼ «  I ) *; I Q R ? *+ XX ; <= " " > w *'` Bol. & Mal. Vishe|ra &'#*¼*,B Vishe|ra (ANO22V2), Bol. & Mal. Visherka *,ª` « *više/ä Q < B R &~CC ``'$ " " " ! B Msta Qª R$ hydronyms have numerous correspondences in the Upper Volga and Oka region. 6.2. Hydronyms with < > To this category belong such rivers and lakes as Chagoda (2) &,` &~ª`B Chagodoshcha (ANO6-7A8), Chagodskoye oz. (ANO34B2), Checho|ra *C>* $ ^ _" 6 69 ( ó 69( Q ! ! R X ? &~'M&~C $ $ Q R (this river is the last one in its catchment area)30, Cherma (LPNP:Z1/S) and the Lake {D)D(D! I9 D ó5D)D( $ ^ _" 6 D Q! R X ? *~ ! " $ - dences in the Upper Volga and Oka regions. On the basis of the hydronyms mentioned above, it is possible to conclude that some Finno-Ugrian language ! B < w ! ! ; B ! the sound shifts *š ¬ Â6 ¬ $ " " " = > $ *6D) D and *6D6D ! ^ _" 6 D « šere Q! R and 6 69 ( «  69 ( Q ! ! R$ ? B " « 6 ¬ ^ _" $ 6.3. Hydronyms with < h > The initial Finnic h can be substituted !" , and j- (!, , ", , ) or by zero Ø (Mullonen 2002: 51–56). 6.3.1. Toponyms with initial Russian kh- ( \ Khaba|l|inka (ANO20B2), an oikonym in Leningrad oblast in the upper course of the _ $ = ! "B ! ? {W Q R ? &*$ " " southern boundary of Ingrian settlement. Khobo|l|ka `&ª' w $ ! ! " ! @ ²> "´ hoaba Q R @@ ,B ! @ @ @ ,+ ? " " È{ &{ " " ½ « "  6 ~ Mordvin 6 69 ( , 69 ( PFP óDƩ6 . 246 &~~' &`'$ ; " $ Suomi Q; R ¬ W ^ % ??? C+,$ Khuba (ANO23V6), Khub|ka *,>` ! $ ? ! " @ huaba Q R @@ $ ? B !" @ @ taken place (Kirkinen 1994: 154). In principle, it is possible to derive the toponyms ; hüvä Q R$ ? ; ó and the Finnic *v ¬ , ! the Novgorodian area (Mullonen 2002: 58, 68). The latter is more rare as a naming ground. 6.3.2. Toponyms with initial Russian Gebezhkoye oz. `+* ½«  D*9 ;) w " close to Khobolka. Phonetically it is possible to derive the specific from Tver-Valday Karelian hebo Q R$ 6.3.3. Toponyms with loss (Ø) of the original initial Finnic *h- Izhina ,+ª' oblast close to the border of Vologda oblast. This hydronym can most probably be derived from an original * ! . In that case, in the background there may be the @ { Q B R @@ $ " > " @ migrated in the 17th century (Kirkinen 1994: 166). 6.3.4. Toponyms with *h ~ Russian Toponyms of this category are not found. 6.4. Conclusion ? " Âh- $ | B they can be derived either from Ingrian or Karelian migration in the 17th century AD. ^ " B ! " - nyms is so small that most probably they are not inherited from the aboriginals of the Novgorodian territory, i.e. from the Chudes " $ the toponyms based on the diphthongs -oa- (hoaba) or -ua- (huaba) originate from the Karelian language. ; <= " " > w *'( 7. Ethnonyms Chude and Nere ~ Mere 7.1. " {%0 D is vast.31 The areal distribution is focused in Novgorod, Leningrad and Tver oblasts. A total of 30 names have been collected here. " ! $ (4), Yaroslavl obl. (4), Pskov obl. (3), Ivanov ! $ *B ! @ *B ! $ (2), Vladimir obl. (2), Kaluga obl. (1), Kirov obl. (1), Kostoma obl. (1), Tula obl. (1). Arkhangelsk oblast ! @ B ! ! the chronicles referred to as ý 9#9&{I { %0D [ ! ] ´ Q ! R$ ! is not yet solved. If the &{%0 D toponyms at least mainly reflect the ethnos of the Novgorodian B - ments of Novgorod and Tver seem to correspond to the core area of Chudian settle- &+$ ? " ! of &{%0 D " " $ ^ > !" B &{%0 D toponyms do not occur in the histori- > " marsh Choudy|boloto #`, " $ ^ > ! B atlas AVO (2008), &{%0 D toponyms are totally lacking. In the traditional Meryan ter- ritory in Yaroslavl, Vladimir and Kostroma oblasts ! $ of &{%0 D hydronyms, Chud|ozero and Chudo|järvi ! @ 9 \ $ " " " ! ! # &~~( &`$ 31 Chudina (oikon.) (ANO48), Chudinovo (oikon.) (ANO43), Chudinskoye bol. (marsh) (ANO36), Chudintsevy Gorki (oikon.) (ANO32), Chudovka (river) (ANO24), Chudovo &,B Chudovo (oikon.) (ANO38), Chudsko (oikon.) (ANO32), Chudskoye oz. (lake) (ANO50), Chudskoye (nature) (ANO28), Chudskoy Bor (oikon.) (ANO13), Chudtsy (nature) (ANO16), Chudskoye ozero ~ Peipus (lake) (LPNP:Z1/S), Chudskaya Rudnitsa (oikon.) (LPNP:I1/S), Chudskiye Zakhody (oikon.) (LPNP:I1/S), Chudtsy (oikon.) (LPNP:K7/N), Chudskaya (oikon.) (LPNP:I7/N), Opol’skiy v Chyudi $ " ! - nin 1997: 18), Toldozhskiy v Chyudi (oikon.) ibid., Chudinka (oikon.) (AMO57), Chudinovo (oikon.) (AMO115), Chudtsevo (oikon.) (AMO37), Chudtsevskoye oz. (lake) (AMO37), Chudnovka (ATuO69), Chudnenkij (oikon.) (AKalO51), Chudinovo (nature) (ASO32,63), Chudino oz$ CB Chudi- novo (oikon.) (AVldO43), Chudskaya (oikon.) (AVldO65), Chud’ (oikon.) (AIO18~AKO189), Chudin- ka (nature) (AJO21), Chudinovo (oikon.) (AJO38), Chudinovskoye bol. (marsh) (AJO61), Chudikha (oikon.) (AKO121), Chudal|ovo (oikon.) [Kir. obl.] (AVO67), Chudinka (oikon.) [Yrl obl.] (AVO92), Chudino (oikon.) (ATO67), Chudinovo (oikon.) (ATO134,152), Chudinovskiy (river) (ATO16,123), Chudiny (oikon.) (ATO96), Chudnikovo (oikon.) (ATO80), Chudovo (oikon.) (ATO189,211), Chudskoy Stan ²= ´ " ! &~~( &CB Choudy boloto #`,B Chudojärvi @ @C+B Chudozero @ @C&$ FINLAND Dvina Ääninen Onega Vychegda Svir Laatokka PietariSt. Petersburg Sukhona Volkhov Sheksna Novgorod Vologda Unzha Vetluga Volga Volga Nizhniy- Novgorod Moscow Oka Chude-toponym Oka the boundary of the Ryazan principal areas of the Chudes Map 10. The areal distribution of Chud(e)-toponyms. There are some interesting stray toponyms. In Kirov oblast close to the border of Vologda oblast there occurs a village name Chudal|ovo. Close to it is another village called Chegado|evskiy. " Chudovo Chagoda > $ B ! " @ ! ! Volkhov area. ; <= " " > w *'~ 7.2. The majority of (D)D D and !D) D toponyms are located in the traditional area of the " !" $32 Merevskoye oz. on the border of Novgorod and Leningrad oblasts is " " B ! ! ! " Mereva ~ Nereva (see Machinskiy 1986: 8–9). Povest vremennykh let in a literary form Neroma. It ! " G ! _ 32 Merevskoye oz. (ANO20), Mereley #ª *`(B Mer|ka #ª &&+B Mer|lyay #ª *'+B Mer|ovka #ª &*,B Mer|skaya #ª &&+B&*~B Meryan|ovskoye #ª *+`B Meryak|in #ª *(*B Mer|skaya (AJO69), Mera (TKKO49), Merem|sha (TKKO41). Ner|ach|ino oz. (ANO40), Nere|ts|koye oz. (ANO37), Ner|tsa (ANO37), Ner|ash #ª *+~B Nere|vets #ª **B Nere|vka #ª *&B Nere|vskoye #ª &*'B&'&B Neres|l’ #ª *+CB Nere|sta #ª &,(B Nere|khta #ª **(B Ner|l’ ²@ " _ ´ #ª *&'B Nere|buzh|skoye #ª **&B Ner|ga (AJO72), Nere|khta (AJO85,95), Ner|l’ [Volga] (AJO106), Nero oz. (AJO102), Nere|to (ATO21), Nere|g (TKKO62), Nere|khta @@ '`B`+ XX X # Nerizha @ $ B #$ B Nero|sh|ka @ $ " B #$ @ - luga, Nere|ta ~ Narata @ $ Z B #$ > ! $ @ $ ¾ "B #$ ¾ $ 250 Ääninen Svir Laatokka St. Petersburg Pietari Sukhona Volkhov Sheksna Vologda Novgorod the principal area of Chud(e)-toponyms Unzha Mer(e)- hydronymVjatka Vetluga Ner(e)- Volga hydronym Nizhniy- Mari-El Novgorod Volgathe principalKazan Moscow Mere- Oka area of and Nere- hydronyms Dnieper Oka Sura Ryazan Map 11. The principal areas of Chud(e) Mer(e) and Ner(e) hydronyms. 7.3. Other ethnonyms " " " ! " Kurlyandskoye '`' « Q@ R Libya (ANO47B4), Livitsa 'C* « Qw R Litvinovo ,ª*B ',>' « Qw R Meshcherskaya Kromka ,`>` « Q R Nemtsovo '&ª' « Q# B R ; <= " " > w *`& 8. Pskov region Neither Finnic nor Upper-Volgaic Finno-Ugrian macrotoponyms occur in the sur- 9 $ ! " Slavic, and therefore it is possible to presume that the Slavs have lived in the Pskov region for a long time. In the map Obzorno-Geograficheskaya karta (LPNP) 1: '++ +++ " " " (D!I Q RB È{&{DWDN Q RB D# I Q! RB !9K Q $ $ ! RB Shiritskoye oz. « Q! RB {D)! " Q! RB ¤D#I Q R Q - rel’, Velino oz. Q! RB Brannoye oz. « Q! - B 9. Conclusions 9.1. Finnic toponyms As presented in Section 4, the southern boundary of transparently Finnic hydronyms < w 9 B w > ! " ; " " occur (Map 1). Their areal distribution is located mainly in the area of Leningrad ! $ ? ! " " " ! " ; $ ? " ; " " ! ! $ ! " " ! ; <= B " " ; $ into account that most of their stems or specifics occur also in the Upper Volga and B $ $ " " Il’m-, Kib- and Mst- (see Map 4) or that they have an 252 Oka-Volgaic formant (e.g. Yaim|lya, Map 6), the Finnic origin of these hydronyms must be considered uncertain. The most remarkable argument against the Finnic ori- ; " " ! $ ! " " ; B " $ ª ! ; 9 <= $ B " w 9 <; ó { (e.g. in the hydronyms Shuya, Shabo|dro oz., Yashchera, Vishera) and ó6 N (in the hydro- nyms Chagoda, Chechora, Cherma, Cheremenskoye oz$$ " *h that could be considered as Finnic names in Novgorod oblast seem to originate from @ $ $ {9*9 #R Ka.Valday hoaba and Khuba « @ $ huaba Q R$ 9.2. Evidence of formants " ` 9.3. Evidence of ethnonyms " ; <= Chudes and an ethnic group called (D) D /!D) D (see Section 7). The most important area of &{%0 D toponyms is located in Novgorod and Tver oblasts, in the ! w 9 w $ Mere-, Nere-, and Nar-ethnonyms are located in the Upper Luga and Upper Daugava, in Valday and in the Meryan areas of the chronicles in Central ; <= " " > w *`, &&$ ? ! ! ! Nere|vskiy Konets and a street called Chudintsevaya ulitsa. " ! & ¼ ! " B " D)D " Chude * - " ! $ $ Q R X Â;) and ^ ½ *jädra/ä (see Section 7.2 and Map 11). The areal distribution of the ethnonyms Chude and Mere/Nere ! " ! " ! Yaroslavl oblasts (Map 11). " $ B " " ^%_% D , ' , The vocabulary behind substrate names in Novgorod oblast seems in most cases to be > ; <= ; ! `B -dra and D).33 In addition the name of the Lake Kaftino~Kaftano oz. (ANO39V4-5, on the boundary of Novgorod and Tver oblasts) Msta ! " ! ^ _" kavto ~ kafto and Moksha kafta « 9;9 Âkakta 9 `,( Q R$ the Lake Udal’ oz. > ,`ª' $ « udal- Q! B ! R X ?> *'*CM *',&$ " B ! O! P$ " as of the big one In|jukha (TVO188B2) and its smaller tributary Veshka > &CCª, cf. Mordvin LD Q! R veška Q R$ musta (in Msta- " " " ; $ | B " ! = Volga territory. At least the toponyms seem to support this, because Finnic tribes " w @ " _ ! ! " " Mst- `$ 33 In this case Volgaic languages mean Mordvin and Meryan-Muroma, the latter as defined by top- onyms. 254 9.5. Hydronyms of Pskov region ! ^ B $ $ 9 B ! of macrotoponyms to have been populated by Slavs since a very early date. A medie- ; <= ^ w ? in the light of toponyms almost impossible. The proportion of Balts in the Pskov ! $ 9 to the Balto-Slavic era. Some hydronyms of Tver oblast, such as Oka [Lovat basin] and Ok|cha, may possibly be derived from Proto-Balto-Slavic ó I NW Proto- ? <^ *h2akwah2 Q R 9 @ B $ ! B ! " ª " $ | ! " ! Z MZ w M> " 9 " ! 1997: 4, Fig. 1 according to Sedov). The great number of Slavic toponyms of the Pskov region support the old hypoth- " _ !" " $ $ &~`+ &~+$ w ª ! - ! B ! " " stage already in the 5th century as far as the Mologa region (Yushkova 2006: 145). ? " " "B " ! ! w ª $ According to Yushkova (2006: 149), the first small Slavic groups came to the Lake = " `++ (`+ Z$ 9 ! " w ª < B $ $ ª M M; <= $ 9 ! ! ^ " < " ,++ '++ Z < ^ Chudes into the Finnic speaking area. A smaller Finnic population has lived in different times in the area of modern Novgorod and Tver oblasts. ! $ ? @ ? &( " ,B ! supposedly the economical attraction of Novgorod brought a Finnic population from Ingria and Karelia already in earlier times (see the Birchbark Documents in Section 2.2). It seems on the basis of archaeological evidence that the so-called D people ½> " > &~~~ `~M*$ ? ! w Z > " $ ethnonymic hydronyms Libya and Livitsa$ ? " B ; aboriginal Novgorodian Chudes of the chronicles. 9.6. Oka–Upper-Volgaic influence ; "B ? " 'B `B (B && &* Oka–Upper-Volgaic influence clearly reaching Novgorod and territory of Lake Ilmen. ? ! !" " Svir Laatokka Sukhona PietariSt. Petersburg Volkhov Sheksna Vologda Msta Novgorod Unzha Mologa Oka and Upper- VolgaicVjatka influence Vetluga Udmurtia Volga Ilm-hydronyms Mari-El Nizhniy- Kama Novgorod -ra Volga Kazan-formants Kljaz’ma Oka Chud(e)-toponyms Daugava Moscow Mer(e)- / Ner(e)- Dnieper toponyms Oka -khra /-dra-formants Ryazan and Yakhr- / Yedr-lakes core area of influence Dyakovo Culture Penza Map 12. Ilm ? Chude and Mere-/Nere- ra- and -khra- dra- formants and Yakhr-/Yedr-lakes. The core area has been defined by three (3) of five (5) factors influencing ? ? ' x $# $$% ! Z" &* 9 *+++ ~+ &~~~ `` " ! &~~( &&$ % > *++~ ~` - dialect to be a Meryan substrate influence. This dialectal area is especially strong in ú > ! " - w ? ! - $ ! B O^ P " " $ < pendants mentioned above) close to the Meryans. !\ $ article is to attract a younger generation of scholars to the study of the Finno-Ugrians of the ancient Novgorodian Land. More thorough research of the stems and specif- " " $ ? " ! " " $ " " ; <= " $ ? ! ! " " $ ! _ B ! " by the relatively late Karelian and Ingrian migrants from the more early names origi- nating from the Novgorodian Chudian language. The question of “West Chudes” and O^ P ! " $ 256 } D Hydronyms of Leningrad oblast from the map Obzorno-Geograficheskaja & @ Z@ ? ! ?\ Avloga V5S, Cheremenskoye oz. Z4S, Cherma Z1S, Choga I8N, Chud|lya K3N, Galmach|ikha I1S, Khabol|ovo oz. D2S, Khepo|yarvi oz. #` B Il’mas I8N, Izhora (~ Inkere) D5S, Kem|ka ' B Kikhtol|ka ^* B Kobo|na I3N, Kopan|skoye oz. D2S, Kost|uya K3N, Kus|ega I5N, Kusi|nka K4N, Lembol|ovskoye oz. V5S, Lemovzha , B Lipovskoye oz. D2S, Lyamzha I7N, Lyussa Z2S, Lyuta Z2S, Ludo|nka I3S, Luti|nka ' B Lynna I5N, Mar’i|nka K4N, Mga D6S, Nazi|ya I3N, Neva D5S, Nudo|ksa K6N, Obnova , B Okhta V5S, Olesh|nya K4N, Olo|m|na K4N, Oredezh ^' B Pinega I6N, Pit’ I7N, Pyal’itsa Bol. I8N, Puz|oya I8N, Radil|ovo K3S, Ragoz|inka #` B Rap|lya L6N, Saba , B Samro oz$ * B Sapa I6N, Sestra #' B Sit|nya I3S, Syas’ I5N, Sol|ka ^* B Suyda ^' B Suksa I6N, Suma D2S, Shchalo oz. K5N, Shizh|nya I6N, Shomu|ksha I6N, Shug|ozero I7N, Tosna D5S, Tikhvin|ka K7N, Tig| oda L4N, Tumo|ka I7N, Ukhta ^, B Vegotskoye oz. I4N, Vel’ya L4N, Verd|uga Z3S, Vyalye oz. ' B Vl|oya K4N, Voytol|ovka D6S, Voya , B Volgom|ka I5N, Volo|yarvi oz. V5S, Volo|zh|ba K6N, Yanya Z2S, Yashchera ' B Yegl|inka ^` $ Hydronyms of Novgorod oblast from the map ANO Andolovka &*#&B Chagoda 13A5, Chagoda 19B5, Chagodoshcha 6-7A8, Chagodskoye oz. 34B2, Chechora 28V2, Cherenka 18B1, Cherenka 17A4, Cherenskoye oz. 17A4, Chichilovka 46B1, Chuchemlya 27V5, Chuchemlya oz. 27V5, Chudovka 24V2, Chudskoye oz. 50B2, Il’men’ oz. 34B2, Il’men’ 19V5, Ingor’ 14B4, Izhina 30B4, Kadvisha 27V5, Kaftino 39V5, Kalenoye oz. 48A3, Kaleshev 30V2, Kaleshevka 29V5, Karkomlya 40B3, Kastenka 12B1, Kashirka 24A3, Kat’ 30B3, Keza 41V5, Kezadra 41V3, Kemka 39V4, Kerest’ 14V2, Khachin 54V2, Khadritsa 26V4, Khuba 23V6, Khubka 23V5, Kiba 32A2, Kirva 30B2, Kirishkoye oz. 14A2, Kit’ma 29V5, Kobozha 28A3, Kobozha 30A2, Kocha `'#&B Koyegoshcha 38A3, Kolba 35V5, Kolodezhskoye oz. 34A2, Kolomenka 31V1, Kolomenka 48A3, Koloshka 32V2, Komel’ 25B3, Koregoshch oz. 54V1, Korkomlya 30A3, Korpovka 34V2, Korpovka 45V5, Kostygovka 46V1, Kostyzhenskoye oz. 30B2, Kotyl’ 30B2, Kova 47V5, Kreksha 34V2, Kudra 47B3, Lamerskoye oz. 36B3, Lib’ya 47B4, Limandrovka 39A5, Lipyarvi oz. 18B3, Mda 25A3, Mdo oz. 26A2, Mezga 30A4, Melegusha 17A4, Meneksha 14V2, Merevskoye oz. 20B1, Merlozhinskaya 55A5, Mologa 30B3, Mologzha 25V5, Molonitsa 41B5, Msta 34A2, Mstizhskoye oz. 46V2, Mshaga 32B3, Neverka 46B3, Nevery oz. 46B3, Nezdrinskoye oz. *`#,B Nemega oz. 48B2, Neretskoye oz. 37V4, Nertsa 37A3, Niga oz. 27B6, Nil’skoye oz. 34A3, Nudynya 14A3, Nurdysha 33B5, Oka 55B3, Okzovka &`#`B Oksochka 24V3, Omash 29B5, Omsha oz. 17V5, Omsha oz. 27V5, Omsha 17V5, Oredezh 20B1, Oskuya 14B2, Oskuyskoye oz. 14B3, Pyardomlya 17A6, Ponyr’ 18B1, Priksha 26A2, Rabezha ; <= " " > w *`( 47V5, Ravan’ 13B5, Ragusha 17B5, Radoga 29B4, Radol’ 40A1, Radol’skoye oz. 40B2, Radokha 14B2, Raduga ,&#,B Raduga 37A3, Radulya oz. 26A2, Raplya 16A2, Rdeyskoye oz. 50B2, Redekha 40B1, Redya 34V3, Redrovo oz. 28B3, Retno oz. 21A4, Retomlya 17V5, Rotno oz. 17V5, Rotnoye oz. 26V2, Ryaplya 16B1, Ryasno oz. 54V3, Saba *+#*B Sabro oz. `'#&B Sabrovka `'#&B Sapina 17B4, Saragozha 41B5, Seliger oz. 54V2, Seregizhna 23V5, Seremno oz. 54B3, Seremo oz. 54V2, Serezha 55A3, Sermenok oz. 54V2, Sig oz. `'#*B Sivel’ba 38A3, Siverik oz. 17V4, Siverka 23V5, Sizovka 52V2, Syas’ 17A4, Smerdomka 19V4, Sormal’ oz. 26A3, Soroga 54V3, Stabenka 53A3, Sudomlya 18B1, Suglinka 19A3, Suytsa Bol. 12B1, Sun’ya 12B2, Surovskoye oz. 12B1, Suvatel’ 12A2, Shaboderka 40B1, Shabodro oz. 40B1, Shadomlya *C#*B Shalimovka 26V2, Shambolovka 44V3, Shar’ya 14B3, Shedomets oz. 38B3, Shegrinka *#*B Shelon’ 33B4, Sheregodra oz. 27B4, Sheshno oz. 38B2, Shigolka 19B4, Shildushka 25B4, Shuya 16V3, Shuyarvi-Shu, bol. 18B3, Shulakovka `&#`B Shul’ga 50V3, Taborka 18A3, Tagran’ oz. 48A1, Tigoda oz. &*#*B Tigoda 14A2, Tikhomandritsa 40V3, Tsevlo oz. 49V2, Tsozhenka 55A4, Tuder Bol. 51V4, Tuder Mal. 50V3, Tuleblya 34V2, Tushemel’ka 19B3, Tushemel’skoye oz. 19B4, Uchenskiy 45B4, Uchonka 34V2, Udal’ oz. 39V4, Udina 27B5, Udomlya oz. '+#,B Unomerka 32A2, Ushenka 42V3, Ushkovo oz. 26A2, Uzminka oz. 18B2, Uzha oz. 26B3, Vagan oz. 16V3, Valdayka 38V2, Valdayskoye oz$ ,(#`B Veksha 33B3, Vergot’ 34V3, Veregzha 27B4, Verkasenka 34B3, Veronda 33A5, Veryazha 33A5, Vitsa `+#*B Virovno oz. 23A4, Viska 43V4, Vittsa 36A2, Vishera 22V2, Vishera Bol. &'#'B Vishera Mal. 23A6, Visherka Bol. 23B5, Vyalets oz. 26B4, Vyaloye oz. 24V3, Vyazhitskoye oz. 21V5, Vozhanskoye oz. 19B4, Volga 53B4, Voldomitsa ,+#&B Volzhanka 40V1, Volma 36A1, Volozha 34V4, Volozhba 17A5, Volkhov 22V2, Vorozhba '&#'B Yaimlya 36B2, Yashchera 6-7A1, Yavon’ 46V1, Yederka 48A3, Yedrovo oz. 48A2, Yeglinka 12B2, Yeglinka 37V4, Yeglino oz. 37V4, Yelimna 14B4, Yemetskoye oz. 27A5, Yemenets *C#*B Yeresha 21B5, Yurinka *#,$ 258 254 a2 Volga 255 267b2 257 233b3 258 273 Nizhniy-Novgorod -237a 259 (227b3) 228-229 243 242 244 237b- 240a Moksha Vad Oka 268b2 270- 241 a3 260 228 263 b1 252 251 253 b2 262b2 250 222a2- 224a 254a1 Tsna U shna 227 Teza 253b3 249 192b- 196 Murom -233b2 Tambov Klyazma 230 244b3 226b 185- 188 Gus’ 189- 192a Ivanovo 218a3- 222a1 Pra 226a Vladimir 128b3- 130 182b2 -184 125a3- 128b2 214 167b3- 170b1 210- 213 Ryazan 173 Nerl’ 216 Oka 178a2 208- 209 161b- 167b2 174- 178a1 225 -182a1 160b- 161a Pronya 123a3- 125a2 215 170b2- 205b- 207 110a2- 111 200- -160a 205a 109- 110a1 156a 147-151b1 98b- 102a 151b2- 156a 119b2-123a Klyazma 115a3- 119b1 197- 199 224b Tula 146 -115a2 66b3- 71a Moscow 76b-80a Serpukhov 96- 98a 71b- 74 Upa 57-59a 105b- 108 80b- 82a 88- 91 (53b) 54-56 82b- 87 59b- 62 (74b3) 75-76a Protva 63- 65a1 92- 95 131 65 a2- 66b2 Orel Kaluga 48- 53 Volga (27) 28- Oka 29b 112 18a2- 24b2 24b2- 27 Ugra (37b) 38-41a1 102b-105a 15- 18a1 45b- 47 Zhizdra 36b3-37 32b3-36b3 29b-32b 43b1- 45a 41a1-43b1 Page numbering Page of GBO Map 13. Location of hydronyms according to the page numbers of GBO. ; <= " " > w *`~ References Maps AIO = M N ! Ö¥§§ §§§ *++( S S ZIYU H- F U ! $ AJO = Ö§§ §§§ *++* R !$ AKO = P Ö§§ §§§ *++~ R !$ AMO = R Ö§§ §§§ *++( R !$ ANO = M S ! Ö¥§§ §§§ *++ S ZIYU S F U ! $ @ ¾ V P Ö¥§§ §§§ *++ W U ZIYU F - !$ ¾ V! Ö§§ §§§ *++ R !$ ASO = W Ö§§ §§§ *++C R !$ ATO = X Ö§§ §§§ *++` R !$ = ¾ M Y ! V Ö¥§§ §§§ *++( R - Z $ Z - $ ZIYU EY !F$ AVLO = H Ö §§ §§§ *++C R !$ AVO = M H ! Ö¥§§ §§§ *++C W U ZIYU F - !$ ªØ¥§§§ N DI )N N9 Ö¥§§ §§§ 2000: Helsinki: Karttakeskus. #=#@ ¾ M I Ö§§ §§§ &~~+ Q IYIP WWW $ #=#@ @ ¾ P M I Ö§§ §§§ &~~+ Q IYIP WWW $ #=#@ ¾ T M I Ö §§ §§§ 1990: Q IYIP WWW $ LPNP = T I ! M Q U S U Ö§§ §§§ &~~+ Q HXY I^$ > ¾ V ¦ H ! Ö¥§§ §§§ *++& R HXY I^$ TKKO = X ! M P ! Ö¥§§ §§§ &~~( R HXY I^$ @ @ ¾ X ! M V P ! Ö¥§§ §§§ &~~( R HXY I^$ Literature " ¾ FB $ F$ &~C+ I ! ! U S $ M c . $ &'(M&`*$ ¾ F B F ! &~~* S ! < - ! , , . – Studia Slavica Finlandensia. Tomus IX. Helsinki. 1–50. ¾ F B F ! &~~( R! ! - $ M H ! 1997: 6. R $ **M,`$ Ahlqvist, Arja 1998a: Merjalaiset – Suurten järvien kansaa. – Virittäjä 102: 1: 24–55. 260 ¾ F B F ! &~~C! W! < - ! Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 11–49. B *++' " ! $ ? |" B Petri Kallio & Jarmo Korhonen (eds), Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen. ¡D N &{) 8N 8 ) 9)( 9 %#D{N9 %( Ô§. Geburtstag. Mémoires de la Société Néophi- lologique de Helsinki 63. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. 5–34. Aikio, Ante 2007: The Study of Saami substrate Toponyms in Finland. – Onomastica Ura- lica 4. Helsinki: Debrecen. 157–197. Ainiala, Terhi & Saarelma, Minna & Sjöblom, Paula 2008: Nimistöntutkimuksen perusteet. Tietolipas 221. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Ariste, Paul 1962: Mõni sõna leivudest. – Etnograafia Muuseumi Aastaraamat 18. Tallinn. 266–275. ª B \ &~~~ Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 232. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. ª ! ¾ G B J$ H$ &~'( U P . U - V . U I - P # " ¾ I B $ N$ &~( R! R $ M U $ O T $ #ª ¾ W !B I$ U$ &~( I ! T $ R N S $ # ¾ I B ]$ H$ &~,+ L K . R Kriiska, Aivar & Tvauri, Andres 2007: Viron esihistoria. Hannu Oittinen & Andres Tvauri (suom.). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. @ " ¾ P B H$ G$ *++ N $ M % $B The Sla- vicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingiesia 27. Helsinki. 222–233. @ ¾ P B H$ W$ *++& P ! EQF$ M J$ F$ R G F$ F$ W $ R ! Q ! . W U W < $ (,M($ Laul, S. 1973: Zur Frage über die Hügelgräber in Südostestland. – Suomen Muinaismuisto- yhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 75. Helsinki. 95–102. w ¾ 9 B > &~C` Ù DN% I !K# I 90 ! . Lithuanian-English Diction- ary. Chigago: Lietuviškos Knygos Klubas. Lehtiranta, Juhani 2001: Yhteissaamelainen sanasto. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimi- tuksia 200. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Lihatshov = Lihatšov, D. S. 1994: Nestorin kronikka ²U ´$ \ < Leena Jaakkola (suom.). Porvoo–Helsinki–Juva: WSOY. w B % *++ 9 ! ^ " ? X ^ " R$ M % $B The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsin- giesia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 246–258. w" ¾ Q! B N$ N$ &~ F ! ! H ! >???M?Ç $$ M P V . R $ &*(M&,$ w" ¾ Q! B N$ N$ &~C W ! H ! $ M R ! WWWV &`*$ Q $ w" G # " " ¾ Q B H$ N$ G I !B $ W$ &~~~ P ! . W P $ " ¾ R B J$ F$ &~C c W ! $ M V W . Q $ ,M*~$ " ¾ R B J$ F$ &~~+ T ! ! H H E F >???MÇ? $$ M W . T $ Q $ &&+M&*+$ # ¾ R B N$ N$ G F B N$ H$ G IB N$ H$ &~~( W U ! W $ W M U Y M - M F ! I M N < < EN F$ `*M'$ B $ $ *++ ? " &+ M&, - ^ X $ M % $B The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 259–281. ; <= " " > w *, Mallory, J. P. & Adams D. Q. (eds) 1997: Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. " ¾ RB F$ P$ *++&B *++'B *++( W ! ! V W ?M???$ N Y $ " ¾ RB F$ P$ *++ T !. R ! !B - < $ ES F$ B # &`~` Atlas sive cosmographicæ...Russia cum confinijs. Amsterdam. MFM = Moisio, Arto 1992: Marilais-Suomalainen sanakirja – Marla-Finla muter. Turku: Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen julkaisuja. " ¾ R B $ $ *++& P - $ U $ M J$ F$ R G F$ F$ W B R ! Q ! $ W U- W < < - $ ,`M'$ B | &~` ^ \ ! \ $ Eesti rahva etnilisest ajaloost. Tallinn. 41–119. ¾ R B N$ N$ *++* X ! U !. U ! - !$ U ! ! B N ! B $ # &~(+ ¾ R . H , W - ! $ S ! - WWW S$ S$ G $ R N ER F$ MW = Paasonen, H. 1990–99: Mordvinisches Wörterbuch$ w ; <= XXIII, 1–6. Zusammengestellt von Kaino Heikkilä. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Mägiste, Julius 1950: Tšuudien kansallisuusnimen alkuperän ongelma ja suomen suudin, vir. suue ’kiila’. ă ) NN; 54: 74–79. NA = Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen nimiarkisto. Helsinki. Nissilä, Viljo 1975: Suomen Karjalan nimistö. % @ \ @ ^ - säätiön julkaisuja. Nuorluoto, Juhani 2006: Is there a Sound Change of “D 9P ½ M % - luoto (ed.), The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 293–308. B % *++( ! " # « ¬ « ¬ - ª ! Z # ^ 9 ½ – Topics on the ethnic, linguistic and cultural making of the Russian North. Slavica Helsingensia 32. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at the University Helsinki. 176–195. B &~C~ % ! $ Virittäjä 93: 497–503. Ortelius, Abraham 1595: Additamentvm qvintum, Thatri orbis terrarvm, Evropam, sive cel- ticam veterem. Antverpen. Pajula, Marja & Vanhanena, Iveta & Samcova, Jelena 1997: Latviešu-Somu, Somu-Latviešu )0! & $ $$ $ Patrushev, Valery 2000: The Early History of the Finno-Ugric Peoples of European Russia. Oulu: Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae. 9 B w &~C` Turunmaan saariston suomalainen lainanimistö. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 418. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. 264 9 ¾ UB F$ N$ &~'( N WWWV. Q $ 9 ¾ UB F$ N$ &~C& W Ö N - Q , U S . Q $ 9 w &~` ¾ U ~M&*$ R $ B 9 *++~ w ª ! 9 $ Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 60: 162–202. _ ¾ B $ Q$ &~(' P ! $ M ! ! . R $ " ! ¾ ! B $ F$ &~C& ! V ·M· $ Q - $ " ! ¾ ! B $ F$ &~~( Z V . W Russian Dialects. 7–50. B % *++! = ! " " 9 !- " ^ ? $ M Onomastica Ura- lica 4. Debrecen. 1–64. Saarikivi, Janne 2007: Finnic Personal Names on Novgorod Birch Bark Documents. – The Slavicization of the Russian North$ % $$ | 32. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 196–246. B % G # B *++` ? $ M % > B B | w B # $ Muut- N% (%9N9Ö );9 N%I Ø W ! ÙD{N D! ᧠%9N W ! I%!! I . Kieli 16. Hel- sinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos. 111–146. B % &~~* ? <^ ! " ! "$ M Pearson (ed.), ÚD) WD&N D 9! !09 %)9WD ! # !K% KD &%#N%)D !0 )D# K 9!Ö N%0 D in honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Vol. *$ % ? <^ B Series 9: 265– 279. Sammallahti, Pekka 1988: Historical phonology of Uralic languages. With special reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. – Denis Sinor (ed.), ») # & Ù !K% KD ¦ ÛD &) WN 9! history and foreign influences$ w M ú M @=! M @ $ ^$ %$ ª $ 478–554. Sammallahti, Pekka 1989: È( ăÈ%9( N!DK ); . È (D# ă %9( # !D! ! I ); . Ohcejohka: Jorgaleaddji Oy. Sammallahti, Pekka & Morottaja, Matti 1993: Säämi-Suomâ sänikirje. Inarinsaamelais-suo- malainen sanakirja$ \ # \ "$ Sammallahti, Pekka 1999: Saamen kielen ja saamelaisten alkuperästä. – Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. – Paul Fogelberg (ed.). Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Helsinki: Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten. Suomen Tiedeseura. 70–90. ¾ WB H$ H$ &~+ P $ M W ! ! 1. R $ '(M*$ ¾ WB H$ H$ &~(~ c ! S M Z ! $ Q $ 74–80. ; <= " " > w *` ¾ WB R$ H$ &~C& î ! S ÇMÇ> $$ R $ SMJ = W ! &M&+ &~~+M*++` O X # ¾ > B &~&M~ Wörterbuch der Russischen gewässernamen I–V. Berlin. _ " ¾ M ! B F$ F$ *++' . R - ! $ ú ¾ B ]$ *++& T ! ! G U $ M J$ F$ R G F$ F$ W B R ! Q ! $ W U W < < $ *`M*($ ú B $ $ *++ 9 « $ $ ¬$ ª \ $ $ 9 B $ >$ &~~( Karjalan kielen murrekar- tasto. Helsinki: Venäjän tiedeakatemian Karjalan tiedekeskuksen kielen, kirjallisuu- den ja historian instituutti. Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. KKS = Karjalan kielen sanakirja I–VI &~C *++`$ 9 > ?M???B \ @ ?>M>? $ w ; <= Ç>?$ @ - kuksen julkaisuja 25. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura – Kotimaisten kielten tut- kimuskeskus. @ B *++ _ @ - lia. – Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.), The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Helsin- gesia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 167–178. @ B % *++ X @ _ ; <= ª < ½ – Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.), The Slavicization of the Russian North. Slavica Hel- singiensia 27. Helsinki: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures at Helsinki University. 179–196. @ ¾ P B G$ W$ *++& J $ T U $ M J$ F$ R G F$ F$ W B R - ! Q ! $ W U W < < $ *CM,&$ 262